Outline

Background: Research synthesis has growing impact in evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SR) represent a cornerstone of research synthesis and require scientific rigor. Nevertheless, SR are often criticized as “secondary research” and not granted the status of original research.

Journal editors are gatekeepers in the publication process. Their appraisal of a study design may reflect but also influence the value it receives in the scientific community.

Material/methods: We identified all 118 journals labeled as “core clinical journals” in Pubmed’s Journal Database in April 2009. The journals’ editors were surveyed by email starting in April 2009 followed by a reminder email in August 2009. The following three questions were asked:

1.

Do you consider a systematic review an original research project?

2.

Do you publish systematic reviews in your journal?

3.

For which section would you consider a manuscript reporting on a systematic review?

Most respondents considered SR original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) publish SR. Some editors regarded use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for consideration of SR as original research. Journals place SR in various sections such as “Original research”, “Review”or “Special article" (Table 2 [Tab.Â 2]).